This article discusses a legal battle over the appointment of alina Habba as Acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
The Core Dispute:
Thomas Mirigliano,representing julien Giraud Jr.(who faces drug and weapons charges), filed a motion arguing that President Trump and Attorney General Bondi violated the law and Giraud’s due process rights by overriding a federal judges’ vote to appoint someone else and instead appointing Alina Habba as Acting U.S.Attorney.
Mirigliano’s motion sought to either dismiss Giraud’s indictment or prevent Habba’s office from prosecuting him.
The legal challenge has halted federal court proceedings in New Jersey as everyone awaits a determination on Habba’s legitimacy.
The Justice Department‘s Arguments (in their brief):
- Habba’s Appointment was “Irregular”:
The Justice Department argues that Habba’s appointment was not irregular.
They claim she followed the requirements of the Federal Vacancies reform Act by resigning as interim U.S. Attorney and withdrawing her nomination from the Senate, making her eligible to serve as Acting U.S. Attorney. They assert that the attorney General properly appointed her as First Assistant U.S. Attorney, and the First Assistant can serve as Acting U.S. Attorney when the office is vacant.
Furthermore,they argue that President Trump properly removed the individual the District Court had appointed,as this appointment happened before Habba’s tenure ended,meaning there was no actual vacancy to fill at that time. The firing of the previous first Assistant and Habba’s appointment to replace her occurred before the judges had any authority to act.
- Habba’s Authority as Special Attorney:
the brief also contends that, regardless of the appointment dispute, Habba has been appointed as a Special Attorney to the Attorney general with specific authority over the District of New Jersey.
This delegation of authority, they argue, gives her the legal right to oversee cases and makes Mirigliano’s claim that prosecutions from her office are illegitimate invalid.
The Justice Department states that Assistant U.S. Attorneys in her office exercise the Attorney General’s delegated authority under her supervision, and there’s no basis to disqualify the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office for New Jersey.
The Separation of Powers Argument:
The Justice Department concludes that allowing any outcome other than Habba’s continued service would be a violation of the separation of powers.
They argue it would infringe on the President’s and Attorney General’s authority to appoint and fire prosecutors.
* They frame the situation as the “real separation of powers violation” being forcing the President and Attorney General to accept a judicially appointed U.S. Attorney when they prefer someone else.
In essence, the Justice Department is defending Habba’s position by arguing she was appointed legally and, even if there were procedural questions, she has separate authority as a special Attorney that validates her actions. They also frame the challenge as an overreach by the judiciary into the executive branch’s power.
